About your Search

20130416
20130424
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5
array to include a sophisticated air defense capability, depending who is operating in. a no-fly zone would not be without cost. >> even though the best testified he could with cruise missiles and within the patriot missiles in the right place is that we could establish a no-fly zone. >> patriot missiles i'm getting out of my league. that is essentially a point weapon. the theory is you could position patriot missiles outside of syria and somehow provide security outside the zone, given the nature of the pastry about then, which is not an area of a project or would be tough. >> and what's fascinating is now you are saying instead of the joint chiefs of staff that it has deteriorated so much that you now have questions whether we should supply weapto rebels are not, which the argues we shod have supplied them back ommended coing to published reports well heta o state, as well as the chairman of the joint chiefs f staff. it's remarkable. see you in the administration figure and say we don't know where the weapons are going. maybe if we help the people of writing from the beginning befor
. for the left, the defensive crouch at least makes sense. liberalism's main purpose is to defend its past gains from conservative reform. negativity on the right to my mind makes no sense at all. the left has created this false narrative. liberals are for things and conservatives are against things. when we concede this narrative, we concede the debate before the debate begins. yet too many of us do it anyway. we take the bait. a liberal proposes an idea, we explain why it will not work, and we think we have won the debate at that moment. even if we do, we reinforce that false narrative that i am talking about, winning battles while losing the war. this must be frustrating to the scholars at the heritage foundation who work every day producing new ideas, ideas about what conservatives can be for. moret should be frustrating to the conservatives around the country that we as elected conservatives were elected to serve. after all they know what they are for, so why don't we? perhaps it is because it is so easy in washington to forget. in washington we debate public policy so persistently that we
and the supreme court's rulings that have affirmed our individual right to self-defense and our individual right for freedom? and i believe i actually have an answer that the senate could coalesce around. you know, as i talk to the most avid gun owners in oklahoma, many who are opposing me trying to reach a compromise, the one question that they agree with me on is, if you could know as a gun owner, or whoever you are, if you have a gun and you're going to sell, if you could know that you were not selling that gun to somebody on the "do not buy" list -- you see, we've got all these words going on right now. the background check. there's no background check with the nics list. it's a check against a prohibited -- people who are prohibited from buying. and it's not a very good list, by the way, because the states haven't complied, the courts haven't complied with people that have been convicted of felony. we have a lot of problems in temples the "do not buy" list. so you actually need to think of this list as cient of like the do not -- kind of like the do not fly list that we have. nobody wants t
first line of defense and we need to step up. we need to be responsible. we need to get this passed. >> if i may, one thing, and that is, when it became possible that we would not have assault weapon ban or we would not have a prohibition on future sales of high-capacity magazines, it made a background check bill even more important for it to be as strong as it could be. because not having successes in terms of reducing the number of guns that are out there. 300 million guns out there already. this background check is really very, very important, and i thank you again, you and the task force, for your leadership on it. you and representative king for your leadership on presenting this bill in the house, and we hope to be able to say by the time we meet again that we have an overwhelmingnmber of come in a bipartisan way, of cosponsors and that the american people have weighein, not only forcosponsorship but for a vote. thank you all very much. >> thank you. >> house speaker john boehner also held his weekly briefing shortly after this one. in which he also addressed monday's boston b
is for the purpose of providing national defense and interstate commerce, but since the state have shuffled off welfare and education and everything else to the federal government, neither one of the governments are doing the job properly. another thing is i am a 21-year veteran. i think we should get out of afghanistan or any other place that we're in now that we're not going to go over there and beat the hell out of them and come on home. i think veterans a lot of times are complaining -- there are cases where they are being mistreated, but there are veterans who are complaining that are probably getting too much help as it is. i think you very much. -- thank you very much. guest: i want to thank you for your service to this country. the role of the better government, i have to agree first and foremost is a national defense. homeland security plays a key role in that. the clear role is to keep people safe and do what we can. i certainly understand the concern about making sure we do what we do it as efficiently and effectively as possible. i do see a public role with regard to the things tha
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)